Letters to the Editor

No Neutering, Please
After La Crescenta’s enchanting visit from a bear this past summer, we took the time to christen him “Meatball” after his favorite dumpster dish where he’d dined prior to splashing in someone’s pool to cool off. He was captured and moved to temporary housing while his future was being decided. The community of La Crescenta and surrounding areas established a fund to collect money for a natural habitat, medical attention and food. All of this is great except they also want to neuter him.

This seems like an unnecessary, even criminal act. We would be interrupting the continuity of this species. We do neuter our pets, but Meatball is not considered a pet according to the newspaper article.

Since Colorado doesn’t appreciate his presence, we in California have so much square footage of forests and mountains where Meatball could be released free and live free in his own environment. Isn’t this what we do with whales, dolphins, pelicans, bald eagles, condors and seals without neutering them? Pandas are never neutered because we are trying to save them from extinction. Why is it preferable to neuter Meatball and hold him captive instead of leaving him intact and setting him free? We don’t even do that to sexual predators!

As we’ve seen on several newscasts lately, there have been plenty of bear sightings in several cities. Who knows? Maybe Meatball could one day meet his Cinderella and live happily ever after.

And finally, in the 21st Century, we ask, “Who are these people to decide on this genocidal act? Mengele? Hitler?” Let’s not begin the extermination of this species that captures our children’s imaginations and populates their fairy tales. Let’s also not forget that almost every one of us slept cuddled up to our Teddy Bears at night.

Let’s show Meatball some respect…no neutering!

Rafael Aberasturi
La Crescenta

Prop 37 … Follow The Money
I have usually taken the stand that as consumers, we should be able to make informative choices about the products and services we wish to use to enhance our lives. In order for this to happen, the information must be made readily available; if it is not, then our ability to make decisions is hampered.

Proposition 37 is an issue where the public deserves to be informed that they are consuming food that has been genetically modified (GMO). If this proposition is defeated, the consumer (you and I) will be left in the dark as to whether we are consuming foods that have been modified.

I recently read an article where an independent comparison study was done on feeding rats a genetically modified diet with the addition of designated “supposed” safe levels of the chemical round-up placed in their water  (produced by Monsanto Corporation) versus rats who were fed no GMO food and without the roundup in their water. The rats that consumed the GMO food and round up had an early death rate which increased by 70% and large tumors appeared on many of them.

It is my opinion (and many other people’s who are concerned with their continued health) that we have a right to know what type of food we are eating and that this labeling of foods is vital. We have a right to make an informed decision regarding what we eat.

The deception involved in the multi-million dollar campaign to convince consumers to vote against Prop 37 is tragic. The radio ads I have been hearing state at the end that they are funded by – guess who? Monsanto Corporation.

The GMO seeds used are treated with round-up, a highly toxic weed killer, and of course they don’t want to have to have labels on their food products because they might lose too much money for those health conscious folks like me who prefer not to consume poisonous chemicals in their food or feed their children the same.

I say vote YES on 37, and remember who is funding the campaign to convince people to vote no. Don’t fall for the deception in the ads they are putting out  and “follow the money.”

Trissie Badger

Suggests Further Research
If Christopher Columbus was not “a genocidal killer” and “a destroyer of cultures” (as Stuart Byles asserts that he was not in his letter of Oct. 18) it certainly wasn’t because he didn’t give it his best effort. Actually, it wasn’t until a few years after his final departure from the island of Hispaniola that the indigenous population of well over 100,000 people had been entirely exterminated.

Anyone inclined to celebrate Columbus should read a few of the choicer entries from his own journals to get a little balance.

Allan Cate
La Crescenta